D.N. Patel, J. - (1.) Letters Patent Appeal No. 567 of 2015 has been preferred by the original respondent against the judgment and order dated 12th August, 2015, passed by the learned single Judge in W.P.(L) No. 3462 of 2010, whereby the petition preferred by the respondent-Management was allowed and the award passed by the Presiding Officer, Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 5 of 1998 was quashed and set aside. Hence, the original respondent-workman has preferred this Letters Patent Appeal.
(2.) Factual Matrix: Present appellant was appointed as Assistant Manager in the year 1988. His appointment letter is at Annexure 1 to the memo of L.P.A. No. 567 of 2015. Thereafter, he was promoted as Dy. Manager (SecurityServices) on 9th October, 1991 (Annexure 4 to the memo of this Letters Patent Appeal). His services have been terminated on 29th October, 1994. This was a termination simpliciter. No enquiry was conducted, no charge sheet was given. Industrial dispute was raised under the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and under Section 10 of the said Act appropriate Government made a Reference to the Labour Court, Jamshedpur being Reference Case No. 5 of 1998. Terms of Reference read as under: Whether the termination of services of Shri Braj Bhushan Bansal, Workman of M/s. Usha Martin Industries Limited, Gamharia, West Singhbhum is justified. If not, what relief he is entitled to? Preliminary issue raised by the Management was that this employee is not a ' workman' ? within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947, as the present appellant was employed in a managerial and administrative capacity. This issue was decided by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur vide Order dated 11th January, 2007 and on the basis of evidences of Management and workman side witnesses, Labour Court, Jamshedpur passed an award on 10th March, 2010. whereby the Reference was decided to the effect that termination of services of this ' workman- (present appellant) was illegal and order of termination dated 29th October, 1994 was quashed and set aside and 50% back wages was awarded to this appellant. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied by the award dated 10th March, 2010 as well as being aggrieved by order dated 11th January, 2007 (order upon preliminary issue raised by the Management) passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference No. 5 of 1998, the Management preferred writ petition being W.P.(L) No. 3462 of 2010, which was allowed by the learned single Judge vide judgment and order dated 12th August, 2015. L.P.A. No. 567 of 2015 has been preferred by the said ' workman against the said order dated 12th August, 2015. Being aggrieved and feeling dissatisfied by the award dated 10th March, 2010 in Reference Case No. 5 of 1998, the ' workman has also preferred a writ petition, being W.P.(L) No. 5067 of 2010 because he was granted only 50% back wages. Thus, for getting full back wages, writ petition, being W.P.(L) No. 5067 of 2010 was preferred, but, as the writ petition preferred by the Management, being W.P.(L) No. 3462 of 2010 was allowed vide order dated 12th August, 2015 and the order dated 10th March, 2010 passed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in Reference Case No. 5 of 1998 was quashed and set aside, as a consequential effect the writ petition preferred by the ' workman for getting full back wages was also dismissed vide order dated 12th August, 2015. Hence, the workman has also preferred another Letters Patent Appeal, being L.P.A. No. 565 of 2015 against the said order. Thus, there are two Letters Patent Appeals preferred by the ' workman- , i.e. L.P.A. No. 567 of 2015 was preferred because the writ petition preferred by the Management was allowed and L.P.A. No. 565 of 2015 was preferred because writ petition preferred by the Workman for getting full back wages was dismissed.
(3.) Arguments canvassed by the counsel appearing for the Appellant (Original respondent in W.P.(L) No. 3462 of 2010): Counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the appellant was appointed as Assistant Manager in the year 1988. His services has been terminated in the year 1994 despite the fact that His services were already confirmed by the Management and later on he was given promotion also. Termination of the services of this appellant was without giving any reason and without giving any opportunity of being heard. Moreover, no enquiry was ever been conducted by the Management during pendency of the Reference before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that looking to the evidences on record, no error has been committed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur while passing order dated 11th January, 2007 that this appellant is a ' workman within the meaning of Section 2(s) of the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 and no error has been committed by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur in quashing and setting aside the order of termination dated 29th October, 1994. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity of being heard, services of this appellant cannot be terminated. These aspects of the matter have been properly appreciated by the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. It is also submitted by the counsel for the appellant that while exercising powers under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, it is unwarranted that the learned single Judge would re-appreciate the evidences before the Labour Court, Jamshedpur. This aspect of the matter has not been appreciated by the learned single Judge, hence, judgment and order dated 12th August, 2015, passed by the learned single Judge, in WP. (L) No. 3462 of 2010 as well as the order passed in W.P.(L) No. 5067 of 2010 deserves to be quashed and set aside. The Labour Court ought to have awarded full back wages to this appellant because there was no fault lying on the part of the present appellant and his services have been terminated without assigning any reason and without giving any opportunity of being heard. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the officer, who has terminated the services of this appellant vide order dated 29th Octbber, 1994, had no power, jurisdiction and authority to do so. ;